Observational studyArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Evaluation of the treatment of high intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage for exogenous cesarean scar pregnancy.
Observational study in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI-based scoring model to predict massive hemorrhage during dilatation and curettage in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Trial
- Single-Session No-Touch Hysteroscopic Mechanical Resection for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Novel Primary Treatment Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Focused Ultrasound Ablation Combined with Curettage and Transvaginal Repair in the Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- How safe is high-intensity focused ultrasound? An intriguing solution for obstetric and gynecological diseases: A systematic review.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effectiveness of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) combined with suction curettage in the treatment of exogenous cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
methodsA retrospective single-center observational study was conducted. A total of 41 patients diagnosed with exogenous CSP were enrolled in this study. All patients received HIFU combined with suction curettage.
resultsTwenty-nine patients were administered one session of HIFU ablation. In addition, the other 12 patients received 2 HIFU sessions. Suction curettage was performed in all patients after HIFU, and no patient was converted to laparoscopy or hysterectomy. The mean blood loss during suction curettage was 99 ml. Three patients received two sessions of suction curettage. The success rate of our study was 92.68%. The mean time for serum β-HCG normalization was 23.18 ± 3.13 days. The average menstruation recovery time was 29.38 ± 3.34 days. Based on the blood loss during suction curettage, 41 patients were divided into a bleeding group and a control group. The size of the gestational sac in the bleeding group (3.80 ± 0.87 cm) was larger than that in the control group (3.39 ± 0.77 cm) (P < 0.05). The thickness of the myometrium between the bladder and gestational sac in the bleeding group (2.37 ± 0.89 mm) was less than that in the control group (2.75 ± 0.75 mm) (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe results suggested that HIFU combined with suction curettage could be considered an effective treatment for exogenous CSP of < 9 weeks. The size of the gestational sac and the thickness of the myometrium between the bladder and gestational sac might be high-risk factors for blood loss during this treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.